A recent entrant to the Proof of Stake scene is Nxt which claims to be 100% proof of stake and does so with a process they call transparent mining.With transparent mining the network deterministically selects who gets to produce the next block. If this person is online at the time then they get an opportunity to earn transaction fees. Otherwise a block is produced by the next in line.

The problem with existing proof of stake systems including Peercoin and Nxt is that they dependupon a subset of users that actually choose to dedicate computational power to mining in aneffort to earn income from transaction fees. This creates two classes of users and significantly reduces the percentage of the money supply used to secure the network. Additionally both of these systems suffer from the potential that a large stake holder could perform a denial of service attack by refusing to include some or all transactions.

how do you think the comments about NXT transparent forging?

Seems they r right, we should implemented forging power leasing to get rid of such the issue.

Isnt a pool of leased forging power suffer the same issue as theclass of users and could dos the same way?

A recent entrant to the Proof of Stake scene is Nxt which claims to be 100% proof of stake and does so with a process they call transparent mining.With transparent mining the network deterministically selects who gets to produce the next block. If this person is online at the time then they get an opportunity to earn transaction fees. Otherwise a block is produced by the next in line.

Free Advertising!

Quote

The problem with existing proof of stake systems including Peercoin and Nxt is that they dependupon a subset of users that actually choose to dedicate computational power to mining in aneffort to earn income from transaction fees. This creates two classes of users and significantly reduces the percentage of the money supply used to secure the network. Additionally both of these systems suffer from the potential that a large stake holder could perform a denial of service attack by refusing to include some or all transactions.

A recent entrant to the Proof of Stake scene is Nxt which claims to be 100% proof of stake and does so with a process they call transparent mining.With transparent mining the network deterministically selects who gets to produce the next block. If this person is online at the time then they get an opportunity to earn transaction fees. Otherwise a block is produced by the next in line.

The problem with existing proof of stake systems including Peercoin and Nxt is that they dependupon a subset of users that actually choose to dedicate computational power to mining in aneffort to earn income from transaction fees. This creates two classes of users and significantly reduces the percentage of the money supply used to secure the network. Additionally both of these systems suffer from the potential that a large stake holder could perform a denial of service attack by refusing to include some or all transactions.

how do you think the comments about NXT transparent forging?

Seems they r right, we should implemented forging power leasing to get rid of such the issue.

That would be fantastic!

NXT transparent forging

Will Leave without arguments people maintaining that in nxt "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"Will Leave without arguments people maintaining that POS is not so sure than POW if eventually the number of nodes forging is concentrated in a few pools.

a) funds must stay in the Bob account ownb ) forging power should remain in the node where this self Bob.

Instead the commission of forging of the account Bob should go to the "transparent" pool and the pool manager split the commission forging in proportion to the amount of funds from the accounts that were at that time in the pool .

I do not know if this is technically very difficult to implement but it is clear that if not resolved little by little will create pools and concentrating on a few network nodes and so understand a network more vulnerable to attack .

I think the pool is very good solution for the small investor gives "fairness to the system not equal " but forging power should remain in the node where this account with funds for the sake of the security of the network.

This creates two classes of users and significantly reduces the percentage of the money supply used to secure the network.

Why? Here we see no explanation but just a statement of "fact" (or in other words "bullshit").

Quote

Additionally both of these systems suffer from the potential that a large stake holder could perform a denial of service attack by refusing to include some or all transactions.

They seem to have overlooked the "penalty" for not forging here.

you mis attributed some quotes to me. Ive fixed them in this post, please fix in yours.. but a forger could accomplish the same thing by choosing to forge empty blocks; thus avoiding the penalty. Its a fairly weak criticism, IMO.

But the criticism on only a few accounts being used to secure the network; is that valid? Is it necessarily a bad thing for say only 100 accounts to be active forging 100% of the time, where those 100 accounts have, lets say 15% of all NXT? Is that bad? If so, how is is different by leasing out your effectiveBalance? Does allowing those 100 accounts to forge with 50% of all NXT then change things?

This creates two classes of users and significantly reduces the percentage of the money supply used to secure the network.

Why? Here we see no explanation but just a statement of "fact" (or in other words "bullshit").

Quote

Additionally both of these systems suffer from the potential that a large stake holder could perform a denial of service attack by refusing to include some or all transactions.

They seem to have overlooked the "penalty" for not forging here.

you mis attributed some quotes to me. Ive fixed them in this post, please fix in yours.. but a forger could accomplish the same thing by choosing to forge empty blocks; thus avoiding the penalty. Its a fairly weak criticism, IMO.

But the criticism on only a few accounts being used to secure the network; is that valid? Is it necessarily a bad thing for say only 100 accounts to be active forging 100% of the time, where those 100 accounts have, lets say 15% of all NXT? Is that bad? If so, how is is different by leasing out your effectiveBalance? Does allowing those 100 accounts to forge with 50% of all NXT then change things?

I guess the argument is:

If 100% of NXT forge, then you need 91% of all NXT for a 91% attack.

If only 20% of NXT forge, then you need only 18.2% of all NXT for a 91% attack (that number assumes that only 1.8% of all NXT forge that you dont controll)and so on

but a forger could accomplish the same thing by choosing to forge empty blocks; thus avoiding the penalty. Its a fairly weak criticism, IMO.

So if the forger forges a block with no txs what *exactly* is the problem?

Without some sort of mathematical proof I don't really see what we are talking about (and you could make the same point about PoW systems also as they could mine a block with 0 txs as has occurred many times before with Bitcoin).

I wrote them asking why there is no mention of NXT, and got this response:**********************From: Pamir Gelenbe, pamir@coinsumm.it

Hi ******,Thanks for reaching out. We would love to have NXT involved. I met Piotr from the NXT community in Berlin last week. How can we get you guys involved?Thanks!Pamir**********************So it will be really good if someone goes there (it a pity I'm on another continent...)!